I'm literally crying and pooping over an AI skeleton right now : moviescirclejerk

Context : An indie horror film came out recently. This indie horror film used AI to generate some posters that appear in the background of a scene. This was apparently an experiment by the art team for the film. This is also, literally a hecking genocide.

This "review" was posted to /r/moviescirclejerk to make fun of the author. As is natural for a circlejerk sub, people take it seriously and get mad about AI art instead of laughing at the r-slur.

The use of AI is fricked up, especially for indie film makers who are in the chopping block. They literally could've gotten better art for like 50 bucks. Do you want the future where "You go home and make an AI romcom with you and Marillyn Monroe" like the Russos' want? Because this is the first of many cuts.

Ya, can't make any concessions on AI. If people use the “oh it's such a small part of the film” or “so many other people worked on it and it'd be a shame to not give them their due just cause there are small uses of AI”…those arguments are how studios will justify using AI more and more until it becomes so normalized that a significant number of careers are eliminated and impacted just to save some money and strip the humanity from the art form.

EDIT: just want to clarify i think review bombing is dumb in this case and just not seeing it is the way to go

You'll have to boycott Dune Part 2 as well, because they used AI to track the eyes for shots where they're tinted blue.

I personally think that use is fine and perfectly ethical because it removes tedium from the artists' workload, but if you're going to toe the absolutist line of “can't make any concessions” then you can't make exceptions.

Ai guided art is not the same thing as ai generated art, this movie did not use what you are describing

I'm aware. I'm also against the use of AI-art that replaces human-created content, but that's not what the above comment stated.

"Ya, can't make any concessions on AI." That's a pretty black-and-white, absolutist argument against the use of it in any form. I would like to learn more about its potential as a tool to help alleviate the artist workload, but that's sadly not the conversation anyone wants to have.

I can't believe they didn't clarify every possible way you could willfully misinterpret and extrapolate what they were saying

I understand the frustration and am also vehemently against the use of AI art but I think the review bombing specifically just because of the use of AI art is hypocritical.

Not only is the AI art less than 1% of the runtime of the movie, it's also not critical to the movie at all. By review bombing the movie I think you're devaluing the efforts of the actual humans and could potentially hurt their careers by trying to sabotage something they worked on.

So I agree with the sentiment but don't think this is the right way to get your message out. Maybe I'm bias because I loved the movie tho

Their "careers" are supposed to exist cause their skills are needed and valued, not out of charity - otherwise might as well just shed the pretense and put them on UBI (which I support).

My dude, if you're on the side of computers rather than humans then I don't even know what to say.

My dude you're on the side of computers

I do think they're overreacting a little, but as someone who has read the full review, I feel obliged to talk about this. I would have cited my sources, but I'm not sure how to do that on Reddit.

The reviewer mentions that they're a struggling artist and the fact that they scraped money to see this film only for them to show reminders that their work will be underappreciated and replaced with automated art in the future. Was it worth pooping and cumming over? Not necessarily, but it paints a grim image for artists, even ones who are really successful and can easily make a living out of it. Apart from that, the reviewer said that the film is "very witty and funny" but feels tainted by these out-of-place elements that further remind the audience that the future of art will be recycled and derivative of pre-existing pieces. Users on X, formerly known as Twitter, have argued that boycotting the film simply because of AI art is a spit in the face towards everyone else who worked on this film, which sort of makes it a lose-lose for both sides.

AI-generated pieces are very new and a little uncanny as well, and despite the uses of it in "Late Night with the Devil" and "Secret Invasion", I really hope this doesn't become the norm, and the anger is justified.

they're a struggling artis

not my fault they picked a stupid career

I know this is a circlejerk but kind of fricked up to post this without the wider context of the rest of that review? this person is an artist who spent time and money to see a film whose creators actively devalue their livelihood, you can cherry pick the most dramatic part for lols but I can understand why that would be disheartening

How were their livelihoods devalued?

Hot take, this isn't an overreaction at all. AI has no place in art and will be the death of it. If you can't make a movie without AI, don't make a fricking movie,

People like you existed when digital art came to prominence , and 30 years later you and your cool little Reddit avi are unharmed and art isn't dead .

Not the same thing. Art is about human expression, AI isn't human. Typing in a prompt is not art.

There's a lot of good seethe in this one

Great job OP. Next up, post a review about somebody complaining about legitimate racism in a film and call them a crybaby.

Being pro-Ai is the same as being racist, you chud

Also, I took these screenshots last year and haven't had an opportunity to post them. Enjoy some bonus content !kino